State of nature and social contract

In a world that freedom is guaranteed, you are able to do as you please. This place is great to be if there was a way to insure that everything you own will be safe and that people who destroy what’s yours will be penalized and justified. Life without rules is a place that can be chaotic when there is no one to help you protect your property. For a better world to be formed, people will have to give up most of their freedom to be secured and safe. As time goes on one world must end, but as one ends another begins. A life that is organized with rules and freedom that are equally shared between the people is the world that we live in now. The government is the reason why we can somewhat live in peace with each other. They pass laws in order to protect us, while trying to let people keep some of their freedom. As society progresses on, the more the government tries to take peoples freedom, the more they try to contain people like animals in a cage. The social contract and state of nature are two concepts that show how the government was created and how they make their rules in order for their people to be safe while still having freedom to do as they desire. A world that has not been introduced to civilization is a world that is in a wild primitive state. This world is a state of equality, where all powers of a human being is the same and no one has more than another. Although people get to live entirely free, this freedom is not a state of complete license. It is limited to the bounds of the law of nature, which keeps it from ever having a natural hierarchy among humans. Every kind of specie was the same rank and same advantages of nature. This is what people call the state of nature because of the unstructured ways that people live. This state has no type of government or procedures for rules for people to follow, which allows human being to wrongfully hurt other by...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...
Socialcontract theory is a theory first talked about by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and then other philosophers such as Rousseau, Paine, and Hume; it is a theory suggesting that without state there is the state of nature, which is essentially the state of anarchy and consent is made by individuals to create a state as a ‘necessary evil’ as Tomas Paine describes the state. There are two points of disagreement in relation to the state. One is the nature of the state- whether it should be coercive or not, whether it is necessary; the other is the state's purpose - whether the state should just provide negative freedoms, or whether it should offer some king of welfare.
On the one hand the state is a necessary evil. According to Hobbes the state of nature is the state of licence, where everyone can kill anyone and it is terrible so the state is necessary. Hobbes describes this state as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Hobbes said that individuals consent to give their rights and licence up to the state in order to get stability because the state will be their ‘night watchman’, as Ferdinand Lassalle referred to the minimal liberal bourgeois state in one of his...

...Theory ~The SocialContract~
As Rousseau states “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”, man were truly free at first, but those rights were taken away, and we find ourselves with many constraints in modern states. Rousseau does not agree with the opinion that was popular in his days that states that political authority is found within the state of nature. He believed that the only form of authority within the state of nature is the authority of a father that he has against the preservation of his own child. “Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” states Rousseau.
He agrees to Grotius’ idea that there is a covenant between the king and his people where the people agree to surrender their freedom to the king. Which is something like a “right of slavery.” But no one with the right mind would surrender their freedom for nothing in return. Rousseau states that it is impossible to surrender one’s freedom in a fair exchange. If one surrenders their freedom to the ruler, they must surrender all rights, and they lose the position to ask for something in return. Also, this means morality and humanity are both given up as well by giving up freedom. This is because actions can be moral only when...

...What is the state of nature? The state of nature is a term in political philosophy that describes a circumstance prior to the state and society's establishment. Philosophers, mainly socialcontract theory philosophers, and political thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau discussed and considered the "state of nature" as a starting point to their political and philosophical ideas. John Locke, whose work influenced the American Declaration of Independence, believes that the state of nature is the state where are individuals are completely equal, natural law regulates, and every human being has the executive power of the natural law. Similarly Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose writings are said to influence the French revolution, also assumed a state of nature prior to the formation of a "political person". However Rousseau had a different view about the state of nature. According to Rousseau the state of nature is a condition where private individual interest dominates over the public good and general will....

...﻿April Carithers Wilburn
Western Civilization II
Allison Elledge
2/28/14
What is the SocialContract?
How was one to be able to be governed and still remain free men? The SocialContract was an agreement that was part moral and part political obligation that depended on the people to form society. The entire contract explains the aspects to answer this question (Rousseau, Jean Jacques. "The SocialContract."). The contractstates that there is a way for a person to be part of a society, yet still be able to answer to themselves alone. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke all have different views on this contract.
Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that men would form a progressive state from wild men to conform to society, but states that it would not be a good thing as it would allow for corruption and negative feelings. “However we have no moral liberty in the state of nature, because we have not yet developed a moral sense. This moral sense can only be born in society, and we need to establish a society in which, not only do we preserve the liberty of the state of nature, but also provide the conditions for us to achieve moral freedom” (Bluhm, William T. "Freedom in "The SocialContract":...

...Yeldon
Words 1,997.
Is the aim of the socialcontract to establish freedom, equality or merely ‘peace’? How far is it successful, and at what cost? (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau)
The SocialContract is a theory that originated during the Enlightenment, which addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Socialcontract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or the decision of a majority, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. Its main proponents were Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. However, while they all advocated a socialcontract their formulations and ideas about it do differ to some extent. This essay will attempt to argue that Hobbes hoped his socialcontract would establish peace, amongst naturally competitive men; whilst Rousseau valued securing freedom and Locke wanted it to secure rights for people and stop them living in fear. However, all of these do come at some price, namely the cost of some liberties, however, as Locke agreed what was important was that relative to the state of nature, man now lived in a better, freer, more equal and peaceful society.
The first modern...

...is the Superego. The superego works in accordance with the moral principle. It allows gratification on the basis of the rules that are given by the society.
The State of Nature represents the interaction of human beings with each other in the absence of any political authority. It was a state that preceded governments. As Freud said man keeps his innate urges in check because of the norms that are formed by the society. So in state where there are no rules that have been formed by the society, man will be governed by his own free will. Due to no guidance, no structure, the state of nature would be a state of war.
This can be illustrated by the way man lived in the Stone Age. The only reason that man formed groups together was for survival. Packs were formed to increase the chance of survival. The pack leader was either the most experienced or the strongest; he was the one who was responsible to the pack. The leader of the pack would be the alpha, who would be the dominant one. The rest of the groups would consist of the submissive ones who would then follow the pack leader. The best way to illustrate this example would be that of the human body, it is the brain that controls each and every part of the human body, similarly the state or the pack leader is required to control and make sure that the entire body state functions efficiently or else...

...this power to Hobbs is the primary aspect or function in human nature and life. This power leads to our individual ability to execute our appetites and aversions and gives class separation or a hierarchy to society as a whole. It can be broken down into two parts natural and acquired power. Natural is the power you are born with like strength or intellect and it cannot be altered, whereas acquired is things gained like wealth and friends. We do not stop seeking power as humans until we die. Fear is the other primary motivator to Hobbs; this fear can simply be broken down to the constant threat of death in Hobbes view of the human state of nature. We constantly seek to avoid death, (the accumulation of power lowers ones fear of death. To Hobbes, the logical explanation to our human central desires is that without a sovereign and a socialcontract we as humans in our natural state will always be in conflict, and life will be brutish and short.
3. To Locke the "right to revolution can be summed up as our collective right or duty as a people to overthrow a sovereign who does not properly serve us or a community as a whole. Locke does not view the sovereign as a deity, but rather as just another man living amongst people. He does not reside in a state, but rather amongst his subjects. The sovereign in Locke's view serves the people and acts as a trustee that we must consent to...

...
SocialContract Theory
AJS/532
June 16, 2014
Christina Payne
SocialContract Theory
This essay will give an evaluation on the socialcontract theory of John Locke and how these values identify with the consistency of the criminal justice system and private settings. This essay will discuss whether or not the values and principles will apply to both venues. This essay will also include a summary of the major differences of the socialcontract theories. This essay will provide a discussion of the key principle associated with Locke’s socialcontract theory; it will determine how these principles inculcated in the United States Bill of Rights. This essay will show how the principles will play out in the criminal justice system and security settings; last it will describe freedom in relationship to personal rights, ethical standards, and obligations.
According to (Souryal, 2007) John Locke’s socialcontract theory refers to the views of individuals, groups, government, and community. Socialcontract theory deals with the association with modern moral and political theory, which gives an exposition and defense by Locke’s colleague Thomas Hobbes. Locke’s theory also believes mankind’s natural condition pertains to the state of complete...